When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

Page 95 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Do we think horner will be dominant again next year, like at the giro if he decides to ride it ( or even at the TdF ? )
I'm more getting the feeling he'll pull a hit & run/hide/act normal , or pull a wiggins as this forum likes to call it these days.
 
Galic Ho said:
You misinterpreted my stance.

I meant the level of permissable doping was reigned in by the ABP.

I never said they don't dope. Like thehog said after last years Tour, one only needed to open their eyes to see what was going on. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, it's a duck.

People are still being given clear leeway to do more than others are. Why else do you think Ashenden left? He never said he saw full profiles...he said he saw partial values but when he did see them all, well it didn't look good on the top GC rider at the time. That is from values from 2010. We've had almost 3 full seasons since then and the game has changed in terms of who is a GC force. The question is why? Have at it for all I care, it doesn't bother me. I don't need a press conference or some ABP values to tell me the deal...only need to watch the race and see how some people ride. It's absurd at times.
I did not want to misinterpret your stance. Mu point is still same - Ashenden and Mørkeberg have said that for majority of riders values go down and it is normal, this is how blood parameters should behave during GT. Ok, maybe "vast majority is clean" is too strong of a statement, but at least it shows that vast majority is cleaner and in my personal opinion - lot of them are actually clean.
 
Von Mises said:
And if Horner and Armstrong values went up - does it mean that they did not hire so many docs and medical specialists? Or their docs are so bad that they do not know how to manipulate it properly?
No, it just means they took more risks, got a bigger advantage while still staying within the very generous ranges allowed by the BP.
 
Galic Ho said:
Yeah that last bit. JV was on the forum sprouting the same nonsense. Have the forum ever heard from a blood expert, like Ashenden, that taking samples after exertion somehow magically transforms the blood and makes it inappropriate for testing? Nope. Just another apologist argument so they can have time to mask a team mate or riders doping.

The plasma issue has been done and dusted. Pump in a few hundred cc's or mls or red blood cells and your crit goes up. How do you bring it down and appear normal? Pump in plasma that has been separated before hand. So total red blood cell count INCREASES, off-score changes because hey, the body knows it doesn't need to make new retics and thus both readings go wacky. BUT the point is total red blood cell and blood volume HAS INCREASED. You literally have more blood and thus can go harder. It's simple science. When they make a total blood volume test, then and only then will they stop this crap. This is exactly what Horner's values depict; a man who pumped in some extra blood, total volume increased and he leveled it out with some plasma, but not accurately enough to make it look clean. If his off-score went off by 40 points as people are saying he should be banned on the spot. Actually every cyclist should...but it's allowed by the rules. The BioPassport DOES NOT WORK properly. It has fundamental statistical flaws within it.

Do you know the actual level of dehydration an athlete can perform at before their output suffers? It's 2%. There is a reason cyclists have domestiques to carry bottles. Literally the only explanations for a wacky off-score are

1. Dehydration: does not fit because if you're dehydrated, you have a Floyd Landis stage 16 2006 Tour de France episode. You literally implode and bonk.
2. Pregnant: we don't need to check up any skirts to debunk this one. Horner is not a hemaphrodite.
3. Diarrhea: I don't even want to think about this one. Did you see Chris jump off his bike to take a dump on the side of the road anytime?

Every other reason is an excuse. The science is simple. Horner got a few blood bags and was most likely micro dosing epo. Just like we've known they're doing for a while now. He is not the only one, but he is the only one stupid enough to release his figures. Sadly people don't look into the science, which is simple enough to understand. Like I said, check the graphs back a page or two. The upper limit for off-score naturally should be 95...100 IMO is the maximum. Over that and you are clearly blood doping because nothing else logical explains it. Did you know the ABP limit for Off-score is 130? You literally have so much leeway to go mental it isn't funny...hence why I made joke about Bottle, aka Levi Leipheimer, Horner's old climbing buddy. He had multiple scores over 115. But don't let that get in the way of a good story, because that would spoil the fun in Levi only doping up till the 2007 Tour and then riding clean. :D
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/03/biological-passport-legal-scientific.html

Here it says 110. And even more that 110 could be not doping

Dehydratation it could be a factor to take in account, despite you say no.

I read yerterday again this interview:

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/armstrongs-bio-passport-critic-speaks

It is interesting, and of course, as Damsgaard says as well could be a blood transfusion, Lance in that Tour is quite suspicious acording to the Giro, but it is not sure.

I know riders that are riding clean doing well, but, there is a possibility that some riders are using still microdosing or small transfusions, but even in that case I think the progress in antidoping would be important. The zero neddle policy, the Adams program, the sorpresive controls, and some things you can read to the current cyclist make in my opinion difficult that case, but anyway is possible.

Would make that riders unbeatable as in the dark era? No.

I dont trust Horner a lot becouse he dont have an antidoping ethic as Wiggo have, he defended Armstrong, and he consider that if you win without positives you are clean, but he could be clean and for the moment there isnt anything that make me think the oposite.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Von Mises said:
I did not want to misinterpret your stance. Mu point is still same - Ashenden and Mørkeberg have said that for majority of riders values go down and it is normal, this is how blood parameters should behave during GT. Ok, maybe "vast majority is clean" is too strong of a statement, but at least it shows that vast majority is cleaner and in my personal opinion - lot of them are actually clean.
You need to check your facts.

There was a study done of riders on a team during one GT where the plasma volume expansion leading to decrease in Hct was observed. Ashenden and Mokberg have NOT said it goes down for the majority of cyclists, because they have not tested the majority of cyclists.

Their conclusion was as I said: plasma expansion occurs during a GT.

The BP profiles of cyclists are NOT looked at unless they are flagged by the system.

Even then, they are not all run past Ashenden and Mokberg, as there is a panel and the profiles are doled out at random.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Also: all the people carrying on about dehydration: read the guidelines. No blood testing occurs until after 2 hours post-exercise, for the express purpose of allowing the blood parameters to "renormalise". Not sure if the cyclist can rehydrate during that time, but the guidelines are based on studies that say after that elapsed time, exercise-induced effects are minimised.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
You need to check your facts.

There was a study done of riders on a team during one GT where the plasma volume expansion leading to decrease in Hct was observed. Ashenden and Mokberg have NOT said it goes down for the majority of cyclists, because they have not tested the majority of cyclists.

Their conclusion was as I said: plasma expansion occurs during a GT.

The BP profiles of cyclists are NOT looked at unless they are flagged by the system.

Even then, they are not all run past Ashenden and Mokberg, as there is a panel and the profiles are doled out at random.
In addition, wouldn't professional haematologists know that in general such plasma expansion will (or is likely to) occur during continuous and hard physical strain - of which what happens among clean(ish) cyclists during GTs is an exemplar?

IMHO their hypothesis is sound, either way.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
Also: all the people carrying on about dehydration: read the guidelines. No blood testing occurs until after 2 hours post-exercise, for the express purpose of allowing the blood parameters to "renormalise". Not sure if the cyclist can rehydrate during that time, but the guidelines are based on studies that say after that elapsed time, exercise-induced effects are minimised.
But why Damsgaard say then that Lance test Mt Ventoux day was 15 min after finish? Is he wrong?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
meat puppet said:
In addition, wouldn't professional haematologists know that in general such plasma expansion will (or is likely to) occur during continuous and hard physical strain - of which what happens among clean(ish) cyclists during GTs is an exemplar?

IMHO their hypothesis is sound, either way.
I have no problem with the hypothesis that normal athletes experience plasma volume expansion due to intense exercise. This is not in dispute.

If you read the posts to which I am replying, however, the premise is painful to read. Essentially Von Mises is extrapolating the results of a study to say that

1. Ashenden and Mokberg see all riders profiles
- I don't think Mokberg is even on a BP panel
2. Ahenden and Mokberg are saying all riders are clean coz they experience plasma volume expansion
- neither of them see all profiles, so how could they possible know or claim this? Only profiles flagged *by the system* are presented for further scrutiny.
3. The BP is working because of the previous 2 points
- a conclusion that cannot be reached based on the sandy soil of its supporting arguments
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Von Mises said:
And if Horner and Armstrong values went up - does it mean that they did not hire so many docs and medical specialists? Or their docs are so bad that they do not know how to manipulate it properly?

this obvious reply

hrotha said:
No, it just means they took more risks, got a bigger advantage while still staying within the very generous ranges allowed by the BP.
Discussing doping, one always has to remember that anti doping fell under UCI's control and still does. Take it all with a pinch of salt.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
You need to check your facts.

There was a study done of riders on a team during one GT where the plasma volume expansion leading to decrease in Hct was observed. Ashenden and Mokberg have NOT said it goes down for the majority of cyclists, because they have not tested the majority of cyclists.

Their conclusion was as I said: plasma expansion occurs during a GT.

The BP profiles of cyclists are NOT looked at unless they are flagged by the system.

Even then, they are not all run past Ashenden and Mokberg, as there is a panel and the profiles are doled out at random.

What you mean palsma expansión is what I said before false anemia, and yes, it occurs.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
I have no problem with the hypothesis that normal athletes experience plasma volume expansion due to intense exercise. This is not in dispute.

If you read the posts to which I am replying, however, the premise is painful to read. Essentially Von Mises is extrapolating the results of a study to say that

1. Ashenden and Mokberg see all riders profiles
- I don't think Mokberg is even on a BP panel
2. Ahenden and Mokberg are saying all riders are clean coz they experience plasma volume expansion
- neither of them see all profiles, so how could they possible know or claim this? Only profiles flagged *by the system* are presented for further scrutiny.
3. The BP is working because of the previous 2 points
- a conclusion that cannot be reached based on the sandy soil of its supporting arguments
Yes. In fact, I made my suggestion simply to make the premise more general and thus avoid the excess "noise" and far fetched extrapolations.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
meat puppet said:
Yes. In fact, I made my suggestion simply to make the premise more general and thus avoid the excess "noise" and far fetched extrapolations.
Ok I misread then. Apologies. The argument or conclusion being put forward was hurting my head ;-)
 
Netserk said:
For the passport ;)

Most likely he was tested more than four times during La Vuelta.
Very key point.

It is entirely unreasonable to draw blood from endurance athletes too often. In fact to do so would cause fluctuations.

Once per week during a key competition is about the maximum reasonable rate.

In between, urine every day in red/yellow/pink for sure.
 
Sep 18, 2013
146
0
0
You are quite correct, it is unreasonable to sample blood every day of a stage race.

The current bio-passport protocol is here;

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=Nzc2ODA&LangId=1

It entails collection of 2x3ml, 2x3ml and 2x5ml samples, so 22ml is total minimum required to be taken.

The major problem to the athlete comes from repeated trauma to the sampling site and athletes wouldn't be too happy riding around with a cannula in their arm all day.
 
Apr 14, 2010
1,368
0
0
Netserk said:
For real?

You don't think Wiggo defended Armstrong?
I laughed and then got sad reading that. Laughed because I thought he was joking and got sad because I realized he likely isn't.
 
Jul 8, 2009
323
0
0
Galic Ho said:
Oh you mad little kid?

Cry us a river and go get your jollies watching your boy Froome ride all day watching his top tube.

Obvious doper is an obvious doper. Troll on little kid...troll on. Defending Horner now. Sheesh...the Americans were joking but you're serious. You're in the wrong neighborhood. Move along kid. Move along.
...and it's sundown!:eek:
 
Taxus4a said:
Ashenden could be an expert, but Ramnus Damsgaard give him a good lesson last time he talked.

But I am agree, an expert must analyse the data... I understand that UCI analise the data with experts already anyway, that is the biopassport.
I concur. Ashenden learned everything he knows about doping in cycling from Floyd Landis.

Otherwise, he doesn't have anymore a clue than any other person as to what might be going on today. He still basis his ideas/thoughts, including on what he used as a "theory" about Contador, due to Landis.

So he is no expert on doping in cycling, he just has "theories" and "opinions", and no facts.

Until we get profiles of all athletes for the Bio posted publicly, then we can start to make some better comparisons and understanding on what "normal" looks like.

Particularly with guys we KNOW are clean. Then the theories/opinions can at least be somewhat more convincing, or cloud the issue, who knows. There is so much subterfuge with all this nonsense, lab testing, values and lack of information in general, nobody can say for sure. The UCI/McQuack likes it this way for now.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY